french silent film that uses the plot of king lear as a launching pad. an old father and his wife are unable to work their farm anymore so they split their land between their children. instead of war ensuing, the children become cruel towards their parents and greed consumes them. it's filmed in a pretty straight-forward way, it uses mostly middle range and close-up shots. characters are introduced with a mid shot and then typically given a full face shot. acting is more reserved than many of the typical expressionistic silent films of the early film age. it's black and white through most of the film, but does us some tinting - blue for the night scenes and one snowfall scene (to great effect) and red for an indoor candlelit scene (again to good effect). themes such as the circularity of life, greed, love, and mother nature are addressed. it's a finely layered film with some comic elements and solid storytelling. it's not for most casual filmgoers, but for fans of silent cinema is certainly recommendable. B.
7 Reviews
A Memorable & Believable Adaptation of Zola's Story
Snow Leopard31 May 2005
André Antoine's adaptation of the Zola novel "La Terre" works very well. It is a memorable and believable adaptation, helped significantly by Antoine's naturalistic approach, excellent location cinematography, and a cast that works together very well. Just as Zola's story does, the movie reveals a great deal about the darker side of human nature, with characters well- designed to bring home its points. It is a dark, often grim drama, but for all that it is very interesting and satisfying to watch.
The adaptation keeps most of the significant characters and events from the novel, and it is able to maintain the complexity of the story and the characters' interactions much better than you might expect a silent movie to do in a normal running time. This is in large part due to the fine performances from the cast, whose acting is often restrained but quite convincing. Even the lesser characters are brought to life and made interesting.
Germaine Rouer, as Françoise, performs particularly well in what is really the only sympathetic role in the story. Armand Bour's performance as the unfortunate father Fouan is also hard to forget. Fouan is a foolish and short-sighted man who brings most of his problems on himself, yet, as Bour's performance brings out, the heartache of even such a foolish person is sad to anyone who cares about humanity.
Zola wrote so many fine novels that in one respect it is odd that so few of them have been made into movies. But the complex plots and relationships, and the large numbers of characters, present obvious challenges even to resourceful film-makers. This version of "La Terre" is quite successful in handling these challenges, and in creating a movie that is well worth seeing in itself, as well as a worthy adaptation of the original.
The adaptation keeps most of the significant characters and events from the novel, and it is able to maintain the complexity of the story and the characters' interactions much better than you might expect a silent movie to do in a normal running time. This is in large part due to the fine performances from the cast, whose acting is often restrained but quite convincing. Even the lesser characters are brought to life and made interesting.
Germaine Rouer, as Françoise, performs particularly well in what is really the only sympathetic role in the story. Armand Bour's performance as the unfortunate father Fouan is also hard to forget. Fouan is a foolish and short-sighted man who brings most of his problems on himself, yet, as Bour's performance brings out, the heartache of even such a foolish person is sad to anyone who cares about humanity.
Zola wrote so many fine novels that in one respect it is odd that so few of them have been made into movies. But the complex plots and relationships, and the large numbers of characters, present obvious challenges even to resourceful film-makers. This version of "La Terre" is quite successful in handling these challenges, and in creating a movie that is well worth seeing in itself, as well as a worthy adaptation of the original.
Greed
dbdumonteil4 March 2009
This is an excellent adaptation of Zola's much-debated novel about the peasants ,the 15th volume in the Rougon-Macquart saga.A lot of people thought when the book was published ,that Zola gave to the world a too pessimistic vision of the people from the country,that he showed them as beasts.It's a far cry from George Sand's pastoral works such "La Mare Au Diable" or "La Petite Fadette" .
André Antoine focused his movie on the patriarch, Le Père Fouan,whereas the novel had no central character but a profusion of cupid tight-fisted greedy men and women,each one more despicable than the one before.As the book was part of the Rougon-Macquart saga ,Zola had to introduce one member of that family into the story :Jean Macquart plays a similar part to that of Etienne in "Germinal" .And he is featured in the movie too;even Uncle Charles is showed ,in a very short sequence and there is a hint at his "sweets shop" ,in fact a brothel.
Le Père Fouan wants to retire,so he divides up his land between his two sons,Buteau -who got a girl pregnant and is waiting for his share to marry her- and Jesus -Christ -who lives with his daughter,La Trouille (=Jitters and not "Pest" as the subtitles read),by poaching ,and his daughter Fanny ,a fanatical about cleanliness.
Le Père Fouan seems at first the only positive character (with the exception of Jean,but Jean is an outsider),a victim of his offspring's ungratefulness:but he is much like them when he hides his "treasure" .Le Père Fouan realizes in the admirable scenes that the land should not have been divided ("look what the ants do with it "one of his pals says);he used to own this land ,this ocean of fields on the plains around Chartres (the movie was filmed on location),and now ,he is only looking for a place to live in .But it's too late and only the earth can greet him.
Directed by André Antoine;one of his assistants was none other than Julien Duvivier,whose legendary pessimism would show in his masterpieces .
André Antoine focused his movie on the patriarch, Le Père Fouan,whereas the novel had no central character but a profusion of cupid tight-fisted greedy men and women,each one more despicable than the one before.As the book was part of the Rougon-Macquart saga ,Zola had to introduce one member of that family into the story :Jean Macquart plays a similar part to that of Etienne in "Germinal" .And he is featured in the movie too;even Uncle Charles is showed ,in a very short sequence and there is a hint at his "sweets shop" ,in fact a brothel.
Le Père Fouan wants to retire,so he divides up his land between his two sons,Buteau -who got a girl pregnant and is waiting for his share to marry her- and Jesus -Christ -who lives with his daughter,La Trouille (=Jitters and not "Pest" as the subtitles read),by poaching ,and his daughter Fanny ,a fanatical about cleanliness.
Le Père Fouan seems at first the only positive character (with the exception of Jean,but Jean is an outsider),a victim of his offspring's ungratefulness:but he is much like them when he hides his "treasure" .Le Père Fouan realizes in the admirable scenes that the land should not have been divided ("look what the ants do with it "one of his pals says);he used to own this land ,this ocean of fields on the plains around Chartres (the movie was filmed on location),and now ,he is only looking for a place to live in .But it's too late and only the earth can greet him.
Directed by André Antoine;one of his assistants was none other than Julien Duvivier,whose legendary pessimism would show in his masterpieces .
Technically well made but not the least bit enjoyable
planktonrules19 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
LA TERRE is a film about peasant farmers in France and how they all basically suck. One of the main characters is an old man who is getting too old to farm, so he divides the land up among family members who agree in writing to provide him a retirement income and home. Soon afterwords, however, the family let him starve and his wife dies heart broken. Eventually, he's forced off the land and he can't wait to die by the end of the film. Oddly, however, with the contract guaranteeing him income, the old idiot not once seeks redress through the court! The other main character in a mostly parallel story is a new guy to town. He falls for a young lady whose guardians are evil scum and do everything they can do to keep her unmarried and staying at home, as they don't want to give up what is rightfully hers. In the end, they kill her and her new husband is forced to give back the land to the evil guardians.
Before I began my review, I read through a review on IMDb that gave this film 1 star. Well, I can understand why the person didn't like the film, but this reviewer ignores the technical aspects of the film. For a silent, it's actually well made. If you compare it to other films from 1921, the characters seem to act more normally--with none of the crazy over-emoting done on many films up until that time. The cinematography was also quite good and the film was well made all around. However, when it comes to the story, this review hit it on the head. The characters aren't likable at all--not one. The sad ones (such as the old man who is thrown off his land) aren't particularly complex or engaging. The truly evil ones (and this includes most of the peasants in the film) are so despicable and awful that you could see this film being a propaganda film intended to justify the killing of all the peasants!! Almost no one in the film has any redeeming values and as such the film seems more like a bunch of caricatures instead of real people. As a result, the audience has little empathy for anyone and simply wants the film to end.
Overall, a thoroughly unpleasant film that just didn't engage me--though I tried. If you haven't noticed, the plot is in many ways a reworking of "King Lear".
Before I began my review, I read through a review on IMDb that gave this film 1 star. Well, I can understand why the person didn't like the film, but this reviewer ignores the technical aspects of the film. For a silent, it's actually well made. If you compare it to other films from 1921, the characters seem to act more normally--with none of the crazy over-emoting done on many films up until that time. The cinematography was also quite good and the film was well made all around. However, when it comes to the story, this review hit it on the head. The characters aren't likable at all--not one. The sad ones (such as the old man who is thrown off his land) aren't particularly complex or engaging. The truly evil ones (and this includes most of the peasants in the film) are so despicable and awful that you could see this film being a propaganda film intended to justify the killing of all the peasants!! Almost no one in the film has any redeeming values and as such the film seems more like a bunch of caricatures instead of real people. As a result, the audience has little empathy for anyone and simply wants the film to end.
Overall, a thoroughly unpleasant film that just didn't engage me--though I tried. If you haven't noticed, the plot is in many ways a reworking of "King Lear".
No classic silent film
dauntless-19 January 2007
This film is slow moving, boring, and just about incomprehensible. How audiences of 1922 sat through it is beyond me, considering all the great silents that had been and were being made before and at that time. I found no humor, no character study, no gripping narrative structure, no suspense, no remarkable photography, or any bold "naturalistic" acting. Adding up these faults amounts to what was, for me, a gigantic yawn fest. Nor did the music score help at all. In its way it was just as poor as the film. It comprised three or four instruments each vying for the spotlight, especially the slow, somber, so sad viola. Someone with a couple of washboard-type, probably homemade, instruments attempted to provide percussion but succeeded only in creating cacophony.
Apparently, this film is of no great import in the history of film. I have several film history books in which I checked for mention and/or discussion of La Terre, but found not one inclusion. Curiously, The History of Motion Pictures by Bardeche and Brasillach--who were French film historians!--contains no reference to La Terre and has perhaps three lines re its director, Andre Antoine, none of it particularly glowing.
Though I wasted 90 irretrievable minutes of my time, I am grateful that I didn't spend $29.95 or some such ridiculous amount to buy this mess, which would be hyped, I'm sure, by "Digitally restored!" and "Now you can own this long lost French classic!" and "'Marvelous!' says Joe Blow."
Apparently, this film is of no great import in the history of film. I have several film history books in which I checked for mention and/or discussion of La Terre, but found not one inclusion. Curiously, The History of Motion Pictures by Bardeche and Brasillach--who were French film historians!--contains no reference to La Terre and has perhaps three lines re its director, Andre Antoine, none of it particularly glowing.
Though I wasted 90 irretrievable minutes of my time, I am grateful that I didn't spend $29.95 or some such ridiculous amount to buy this mess, which would be hyped, I'm sure, by "Digitally restored!" and "Now you can own this long lost French classic!" and "'Marvelous!' says Joe Blow."
The mark of The Nauturalism Movement in film...
jrichmon-27 January 2007
The late 1800's - early 1900's saw author Emile Zola turn the masses toward the intrigue of telling stories about the real and everyday lives of the common, and at those times, vial side of life. His slap at the over-acted and over-fantasized tales inspired both painter and film maker. Not surprising that director Antoine made this post WWI adaptation (one of two Zola film projects he brought to film) as he might be considered, through these vehicles, as the man who brought realism to the screen. Many constituents were opposed to this style.
Notice the barren and flat landscapes of France that rival even Kansas and Nebraska. Could there be a connection between the desolation and the characters' desperation and neediness? Check out the "ovalness" of the female characters and their over-layered manner of dress. As in many European silent films, facial expression and body language, at a premium.
The restoration version of this film has a concert-worthy, and an enchanting score with the balance of instruments such as the bass clarinet, violin, flute and percussion....beautifully recorded and synced tightly. Tres Bon!
Notice the barren and flat landscapes of France that rival even Kansas and Nebraska. Could there be a connection between the desolation and the characters' desperation and neediness? Check out the "ovalness" of the female characters and their over-layered manner of dress. As in many European silent films, facial expression and body language, at a premium.
The restoration version of this film has a concert-worthy, and an enchanting score with the balance of instruments such as the bass clarinet, violin, flute and percussion....beautifully recorded and synced tightly. Tres Bon!
This movie made me glad I'm not a farmer
HallmarkMovieBuff18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Given the movie's title (1937's "The Good Earth" is one of my favorite films) and pedigree (based on a story by a famous author), I had high hopes for this film. But as I was watching, I kept wanting to turn it off and go to sleep. Nevertheless, I stayed with it until the end, a) because I hate to leave anything unfinished, and b) so that I could write this review with authenticity.
Among all the movies I've seen in my years, this is one of the more depressing certainly the most so among silents. That's mostly due to Emile Zola's tragic tale, but partly due also to the film's construction.
Briefly, the story comes down to this: An elderly farmer decides to retire, divvy up his farm, and sell the parcels off to his descendants, thinking this will assure him a steady pension and a comfortable retirement. But his family consists not entirely of honest farmers, but also of poachers, squanderers, and adulterers. Family squabbles ensue among the heirs, squabbles over land, over houses, over money, even over spouses and lovers. Not only do some renege on their payments toward the old boy's pension, later in the film they also actually steal his cash.
There's also the matter of what to do with dear old Dad after Mom dies, and he's too old to live alone. Shuttled about to live with one family, then the next, after robbery-by-child (or some other relation I couldn't keep them straight), he's left penniless, homeless, and alone to "die in a ditch," as one character puts it.
Although one of the best things about this film is the cinematography, especially the close-ups of actors' faces, this is no idyllic picture of a bucolic lifestyle.
Filmed on location outside Chartres, the land these characters are fighting over is about as intriguing as a Kansas cornfield after the harvest, especially if one equates "flat" to "boring". But I was an hour into the film before I realized why the outdoor scenes were so bland. I don't know what filter the cinematographer may have been using to shoot this black-and-white film, but in all the outdoor scenes, there was never a cloud in the sky. Every shot of sky was entirely flat-out all-white! This contrasts sharply, for example, with fascinating black-and-white-and-shades-of-gray sky shots by Eisenstein over the Russian steppes, or with those of Ford in Monument Valley.
The story is told by a series of disconnected scenes, but the scenes themselves seemed to be set up more for the memorable camera shot ("blocked" for immortality after all, it's 1921, and we're breaking cinematic ground here) than in order to propel the story, especially in the early going. Also early on, although the actors are shown individually at the outset, their characters are introduced in groups, one group after another, forcing the viewer to learn lots of characters and their relationships inordinately quickly, especially when some interstitial placards ("titles") are taken down before one has time to finish reading them even once.
Given the hard, hopeless life of these characters, and the conditions under which they existed, it's no wonder their story is so depressing. It makes me glad I'm not a farmer (or a member of that family).
Among all the movies I've seen in my years, this is one of the more depressing certainly the most so among silents. That's mostly due to Emile Zola's tragic tale, but partly due also to the film's construction.
Briefly, the story comes down to this: An elderly farmer decides to retire, divvy up his farm, and sell the parcels off to his descendants, thinking this will assure him a steady pension and a comfortable retirement. But his family consists not entirely of honest farmers, but also of poachers, squanderers, and adulterers. Family squabbles ensue among the heirs, squabbles over land, over houses, over money, even over spouses and lovers. Not only do some renege on their payments toward the old boy's pension, later in the film they also actually steal his cash.
There's also the matter of what to do with dear old Dad after Mom dies, and he's too old to live alone. Shuttled about to live with one family, then the next, after robbery-by-child (or some other relation I couldn't keep them straight), he's left penniless, homeless, and alone to "die in a ditch," as one character puts it.
Although one of the best things about this film is the cinematography, especially the close-ups of actors' faces, this is no idyllic picture of a bucolic lifestyle.
Filmed on location outside Chartres, the land these characters are fighting over is about as intriguing as a Kansas cornfield after the harvest, especially if one equates "flat" to "boring". But I was an hour into the film before I realized why the outdoor scenes were so bland. I don't know what filter the cinematographer may have been using to shoot this black-and-white film, but in all the outdoor scenes, there was never a cloud in the sky. Every shot of sky was entirely flat-out all-white! This contrasts sharply, for example, with fascinating black-and-white-and-shades-of-gray sky shots by Eisenstein over the Russian steppes, or with those of Ford in Monument Valley.
The story is told by a series of disconnected scenes, but the scenes themselves seemed to be set up more for the memorable camera shot ("blocked" for immortality after all, it's 1921, and we're breaking cinematic ground here) than in order to propel the story, especially in the early going. Also early on, although the actors are shown individually at the outset, their characters are introduced in groups, one group after another, forcing the viewer to learn lots of characters and their relationships inordinately quickly, especially when some interstitial placards ("titles") are taken down before one has time to finish reading them even once.
Given the hard, hopeless life of these characters, and the conditions under which they existed, it's no wonder their story is so depressing. It makes me glad I'm not a farmer (or a member of that family).
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
